Yamhill Sanitary Public Market Co. v. Strowbridge

161 P. 93, 82 Or. 80, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 96
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided November 28, 1916·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Opinion Per Curiam.

An appeal from a judgment rendered in this action against the plaintiff, a corporation, for the costs and disbursements was taken and perfected by it. The-transcript was filed with our clerk July 8, 1916, but no abstract has been filed as required by Rule VI, of this court (56 Or. 616, 117 Pac. ix). The defendants’’ counsel, ás soon as they learned of the default, moved upon notice to dismiss the appeal on account of that [81]*81failure. No reason has been assigned or excuse given for the neglect.

Upon the authority of Swanson v. Leavens, 26 Or. 561 (40 Pac. 230), Close v. Close, 28 Or. 108 (42 Pac. 128), and Morrison v. Hall, 55 Or. 243 (104 Pac. 963),. the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Yamhill Sanitary Public Market Co. v. Strowbridge, 161 P. 93, 82 Or. 80, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 96 (Or. 1916).

161 P. 93 (Yamhill Sanitary Public Market Co. v. Strowbridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunter v. Allen
148 P.2d 936 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Morley Const. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
90 F.2d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 1937)
Admiral Oriental Line v. United States
86 F.2d 201 (Second Circuit, 1936)
United States Rubber Co. v. Kimsey
26 P.2d 565 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Josephian v. Lion
227 P. 204 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
McFarland v. Hueners
190 P. 584 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)